- Joined
- Jun 10, 2007
- Messages
- 8,921
- Reaction score
- 6,243
The law in the country is actually the Constitution, its above all other law.
A morality law that clearly discriminates against women over men, is BS.
Which amendment mentions breasts?
The law in the country is actually the Constitution, its above all other law.
A morality law that clearly discriminates against women over men, is BS.
Because they arent sex organs, maybe pick up a dictionary?
Which amendment mentions breasts?
Excuse me, I misspoke by carrying over your terminology.
It isn't how Webster's defines something. It's how the Utah code does.
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/title76/chapter9/76-9-s702.html
Just because she disagreed with the law, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ignorance is not a defense. She can attempt to change it on her own time.
The law isnt describing breasts as sexual organs either.
Excuse me, I misspoke by carrying over your terminology.
This is the type of feminism I can get down with......a self proclaimed feminist and proponent of allowing women to bare breasts in public...
why??This woman may be changed as a sex offender for baring her chest in front of step Children. Tili Buchanan and her husband both removed their shirts while working in the garage and her three step-children ages 9-13 walked in and saw her naked.
The biological mother heard about it and turned Tilli in and now there is a battle in the courts ensuing.
Here is a pic of the Tilly, the woman who bared her chest, a self proclaimed feminist and proponent of allowing women to bare breasts in public.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tilli-...-offender-after-kids-see-her-topless-at-home/
Ok what do you guys think about this issue? Did she do something wrong baring her breasts in front of her stepchildren and not being willing to cover up? Remember it was the ex wife who reported her.
I think Tilli should have covered up but should not end up on a sex offender list for ten years due to this incident.
This case may have a larger importance for setting president for nudity.
Another link with more info some of it contradicts what my link states.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/09/30/this-utah-woman-was/
Breasts for women are secondary sex characteristics but not for men so that's why there's often a distinction between the two and I think its a distinction that we all intuitively recognize.No, she wasnt waving her twat. Tits are meant to feed babies and arent supposed to be sexual in nature.
Breasts for women are secondary sex characteristics but not for men so that's why there's often a distinction between the two and I think its a distinction that we all intuitively recognize.
I didn't say they are sex organs, I said they are secondary sex characteristics and that's absolutely true. Whether or not you think that justifies the double standard is up to you, after all Adam's apples and facial hair are also secondary sex characteristics.No, they arent, they serve absolutely no sexual purpose and the only vaguely related function to reproduction (feeding) is not banned.
Funny how conservatives (not you) become feminists when it comes to Islam and yet they support sexist shit like this.
"but we like breasts, ergo sexual" well..
Off to jail for men with pecs.
I didn't say they are sex organs, I said they are secondary sex characteristics and that's absolutely true. Whether or not you think that justifies the double standard is up to you, after all Adam's apples and facial hair are also secondary sex characteristics.
Right but breasts are a secondary sex characteristics for women while they are not for men so that's why there's a double standard.It is a double standard and these characteristic are not exclusive to the sex unlike sexual organs.
The law in the country is actually the Constitution, its above all other law.
A morality law that clearly discriminates against women over men, is BS.
Right but breasts are a secondary sex characteristics for women while they are not for men so that's why there's a double standard.
Yeah, I'm not quite sure you have this entirely right. Constitutionally, whether or not exposing your breasts in public is considered indecent exposure or a sex crime would be a state or local issue, not federal, and thus there could be a good deal of variety with how it is handled. That is to say, there's no clear cut Constitutional issue here, regardless of whether you think it is a bad law.
A man who finds boobs sexually arousing is undermining female equality with men before the law.
All laws federal or not must comply to Constitutional standard.
In what way does forbidding indecent exposure and including boobs in that prohibition fail to comply with the US Constitution. Let's get precise here.